Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:49:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, tlambert@primenet.com, dick@tar.com, jplevyak@inktomi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lockf and kernel threads Message-ID: <199903051749.KAA08647@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903050606.WAA65635@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty" at Mar 4, 99 10:06:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I supposed that for a limited distinct events signals are really cool. No, they aren't. Signals are persistant conditions, not events. Otherwise I would be able to count them accurately. Right now, I can be counting one of them, queue another of the same signal, and all subsequent signals of that type are dropped on the floor. > If you can deliver a signal there is nothing to stop you from > delivering an AST provided that one can muster up the queuing > delivery mechanism which is not that much different than the > beloved old fashion signal delivery mechanism. Actually, AST's run in a mode between supervisor and user. The x86 handles this (the infrequently used "ring 1" and "ring 2", but other processor architectures do not. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903051749.KAA08647>